Gram panchayat land worth crores. Rent Rs. 1. No records available. The story of Uttar Pradesh

Sold for a song The land on Lucknow’s outskirts that was alloted to a trust run by SP leader Ambika Chaudhary’s sister

NINE BIGHAS of prime land lies vacant at Deva Road on the outskirts of Lucknow. The price of this land (a bigha is 0.625 acre), now overrun by wild grass, weed and bushes, is more than Rs 9 crore. Until 2005, this land belonged to the Nawbastakala gram panchayat. “The villagers were planning to build a school there,” says Bansi Dhar Singh, who was gram pradhan then. Five homeless families stayed on this land with the gram panchayat’s permission. Then the families were evicted and the land snatched from the gram panchayat, to be given free to a private trust called the Phooleshwari Devi Shikshan Sansthan.

Gram panchayats in Uttar Pradesh were appointed custodians of land taken from zamindars and royalty by the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. They are to maintain the land through land management committees, and use it for haats or schools. If a committee so desires, it can assign a portion of this land to homeless or landless members of the village.

The allotment of gram panchayat land in UP is governed by two state government orders issued on 6 June 1981 and 9 May 1984. According to the 1984 order, “private persons, enterprises and companies” can be allotted gram panchayat land only after they pay “twice its current market value”. So, why was the Phooleshwari Devi Shikshan Sansthan given land for free?

Phooleshwari Devi is the mother of Ambika Chaudhary, who was the revenue minister under Mulayam Singh Yadav when the land was allotted. His sister Saroj manages the trust. The Revenue Department is the apex body on land allotment. So, when people found out that the minister had allotted prime land to a trust managed by his sister, there was considerable outrage. But Chaudhary believes otherwise. “Is there anything wrong if vacant gram sabha land is allotted to a private institute run by my relatives? This is not an isolated example as thousands of such allotments have been made in the past,” he says.

Documents with TEHELKA back his claim. There is proof of 18 private trusts in Uttar Pradesh that have been allotted gram panchayat land for free, or on rent as low as Rs. 1 per annum.

The 1984 order says gram panchayat land can be allotted for free only to the state government’s ‘service departments’ that deal with welfare concerns like education or health. All Central government departments, and even commercial departments of the state, such as the UP Power Corporation Ltd or the Agricultural Produce Marketing Board (Mandi Parishad), will have to pay the ‘current market value’ to acquire gram panchayat land.

Politicians head four of the private trusts that got gram panchayat land. The parties they belong to were part of the UP government at the time of allotment. So, besides Chaudhary, there is former BJP MP Rajnath Singh Surya, who is the Seva Samparn Sansthan chairman. This trust was allotted land for free when the BJP was in power in 1999. Then there is Vishram Singh Yadav, who is the SP MP from Bilgram in Hardoi district. Katiyari Degree College in Hardoi, established by a trust headed by Yadav, was allotted land during Mulayam’s reign at a meagre rent of Rs. 150 per annum.

BUT ALMOST as shocking as Chaudhary’s case is that of Ram Aasre Vishwakarma, higher education minister in the SP government. As minister, he could have allotted land for a government university. It wouldn’t have been illegal if gram panchayat land had been allotted free for this purpose. However, he recommended allotment of land to the Rambachan Yadav Mahavidyalaya, a private institution which he manages in Azamgarh district. It charges annual fee of Rs. 30,359 for B.Ed courses. Yet it has been allotted an astounding two hectare for only Rs. 750 per annum.

A 1981 order says land will be allotted only after recording every fact. But there are no records for many places

So, while Chaudhary has allotted land to a trust headed by his sister, Vishwakarma unabashedly allotted the same to a trust he was at the helm of.

This ‘rent per annum’ is for a 99-year lease. Thus, even if trusts have been charged token rents, they are as good as owners of erstwhile gram panchayat land. This is the case with the Paramshakti Peeth, which has been allocated 43 acres worth more than Rs. 20 crore for a rent of Rs. 1 per annum. The peeth, founded by Sadhvi Ritambhara (also known as ‘Didi Maa’) is a well-known religious organisation with offices in California and London. The land was allotted when the BJP was in power in 2001. Another religious trust allotted land during BJP rule was the Jai Gurudeo Dharam Pracharak Sansthan founded by Baba Jai Gurudeo. It was allotted land in 2007 at a rent of Rs. 150 per annum.

In some cases, the government has passed special orders exempting private enterprises from the 1984 order that asks them to pay twice the market value. In 2003, the SP government moved an energy policy that specified no premium would be charged for land used to “promote the generation and distribution of electricity”. As a result, Reliance Energy was allocated 300 bighas of gram panchayat land for an annual rent of only Rs. 100 per acre. But the private bodies listed with TEHELKA (see list) cannot hide behind such exemptions. Their being allotted gram panchayat land is an outright violation of the law.

‘Is there anything wrong if vacant gram sabha land is allotted to a private institute run by my kin?’ asks Chaudhary

“It might well be that some of the private trusts allotted gram panchayat land are doing excellent social work,” says RTI activist Izhar Ahmad Ansari who dug up the list of violators. “But the law that says they must be charged twice the market value of the land.” According to Ansari, sidestepping this law means giving a free hand to those who want to use such trusts to grab land for themselves.

Besides private trusts, the list points to land allotted for free to private enterprises like power plants, refineries and sugar mills. One such firm is the Badhauli Sugar Distillery Ltd that has been allotted more than 31 hectare for free. The list has four such commercial enterprises in it. There is also a private individual, Tej Pratap Singh, who was given more than half a hectare in Hardoi for the ridiculous sum of Rs. 8,695 in 2004 — to set up a flour mill.

BUT THE worst is yet to come. These 18 names, exposed by Ansari after four years of repeatedly filing RTI complaints and PILs, are only the tip of the iceberg. To understand how, follow this sequence of events:

10 November 2006: The PIO at the UP Revenue Department receives an RTI application from Ansari asking for details of any gram panchayat land allotment to private bodies exceeding 5 bighas, from 1991 onwards.

1 February 2007: After not receiving a reply, Ansari files a complaint with the State Information Commission (SIC).

28 March 2007: PIO Ramakant Pandey responds saying the department “has not kept the information that has been sought even though it should have. That is why there has been a discussion on this matter within the department and a decision has been taken — to prepare a format and procure this information from the outset (that would be from 1981) — not just from 1991”.

22 August 2007: The SIC is provided with only 20 names of private bodies that have been allotted gram panchayat land, along with a letter, which says that this information only consists of allotments made from 2004 to 2006, and that more “information is being procured”.

24 December 2007: The SIC imposes a fine of Rs. 25,000 on PIO Pandey for not providing the information.

7 January 2008: Ansari files another RTI application, asking specifically for the details of gram panchayat land that has been allocated ‘for free’ to private bodies.

15 August 2008: The SIC receives a letter from the PIO at the Revenue Department saying “such records have not been maintained in any district in the whole of UP”.

14 November 2008: The Revenue Department writes to district magistrates and divisional commissioners who are in charge of land allotments asking them to provide the information Ansari has asked for.

27 November 2008: The Revenue Department writes to the SIC saying despite the above-mentioned notice, “no information has been received from the districts”.

4 December 2008: The Revenue Department issues another notice to district magistrates and divisional commissioners to present themselves in person and give a reply to Ansari’s query by 30 December.

30 December 2008: The SIC informs Ansari of the Revenue Department’s efforts and says the information will take time.

15 January 2009: This time, the Revenue Department presents the SIC with just 10 names of private bodies that have been allotted gram panchayat land for free. Some of these names were already there in the 20 names submitted earlier. The department says that this is all they can find.

29 January 2009: PIO Pandey now requests the SIC to cancel the fine of Rs. 25,000 imposed on him as “the information has still not been provided to Ansari”, even by the PIOs who came after him. So why should he be penalised alone?

3 February 2009: The Revenue Department writes Ansari another letter saying that procuring the information will take more time. They attach with this letter the same 10 names they have given before.

22 September 2009: The Revenue Department writes to the SIC saying they can’t find any allotment details other than what they have already provided. “We have provided whatever information we could find. The applicant is continuing to file these complaints in order to trouble us,” it says.

Now, let us come to the other order governing the allotment of gram panchayat land, passed on 16 June 1981. This stipulates that such land will be allotted only after the details have been “recorded in a register in a format that incorporates every detail and signed by the officials involved”. Also, that on 15 January and 15 July of every year these records will be forwarded to the Revenue Department.

Yet, as has been stated above by the department itself, these records have apparently not been kept and the registers are not to be found. Or aren’t they?

The first list of names was given to Ansari on 22 August 2007. This was more than two months after Mayawati was sworn in as chief minister on 13 May 2007. A look at the list shows that the allotment details given out by the BSP government indict only SP and BJP politicians. But, like the SP and the BJP, the BSP has been part of UP governments too. Can it be that not a single BSP politician is involved in such fraudulent gram panchayat land allocations?

THIS LIST lies in many ways. For one, it misses some obvious names. Like gram panchayat land given to a trust named after Sanjay Gandhi in Pilibhit, where Maneka Gandhi is the BJP MP. It resulted in a furore, which led to a CBI inquiry. Maneka denied wrongdoing. The Revenue Department does not seem to have a record.

Or like Jaya Jaitly, who was chairperson of the Sahkari Haat Samiti, which was apparently allocated gram panchayat land at Ganeshpur-Rehmanpur village in Lucknow district. When Ansari approached the district authorities and the State Information Commission to obtain details, he was told that the documents have gone missing. In a show of sincerity, the district magistrate’s office even lodged an FIR about file number 121/D LRC going missing.

The districts are a different story altogether. Ansari filed RTIs and asked officials in each district whether such allotments had been made. They either didn’t answer or replied in the negative. Yet the list with TEHELKA shows three such allotments in Hardoi. The same is the case with Allahabad. And many more.

The Mayawati government is offering land allotment details only of the SP and the BJP. What of the BSP?

And finally, the money. Going by what the state Revenue Department says, this isn’t such a big scam after all. The values of gram panchayat land that Surya, Yadav and Vishwakarma have been linked to are pegged at only Rs. 5 lakh, Rs. 4.83 lakh and Rs. 17 lakh respectively. Why should one be worried about such paltry sums?

If you go by the records, the land Chaudhary has been accused of trying to usurp is valued at just Rs. 31 lakh. “But the price of land here today is 1 crore per bigha,” says former Nawbastakala gram pradhan Bansi Dhar Singh. “So the value of nine bighas would be Rs. 9 crore.”

MANAGER Vishram Singh YadavREGISTRATION NUMBER Not availablePURPOSE Establishing a degree collegeDATE OF ALLOTMENT 2 February 2007

MARKET VALUE THENRs. 4.83 LAKHRENTRs. 150 PER ANNUMAUTHORITY WHO ORDERED ALLOTMENT State CabinetSIGNATORY ON ORDER TP Pathak, secretary, Revenue DepartmentAREA OF LAND Not providedLOCATION Same as registered address

ORGANISATION

JAI GURUDEO DHARAM PRACHARAK TRUST
Mathura

TRUSTEE Dr VH LullaREGISTRATION NUMBER Not availablePURPOSE Establishing a religious trustDATE OF ALLOTMENT 20 February 2007

MARKET VALUE THENNot availableRENTRs. 150 PER ANNUMAUTHORITY WHO ORDERED ALLOTMENT State CabinetSIGNATORY ON ORDER TP Pathak, secretary, Revenue DepartmentAREA Not providedLOCATION Same as registered address

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.

Advertisement

TEHELKA is the fastest growing national news group for English & Hindi news magazines. The core value of the brand is to uphold the truth with a free, fair and fearless attitude. The company has a high standard of excellence in journalism and a commitment to assist in India’s fight against corruption. News is published in the maximum number of languages to maintain a stronger circulation base across the country.